Parliaments and Republics

In my introductory post I stated that one of the things I thought I could bring to The League was an outsider’s perspective to American debates. Since the relative merits of parliamentary democracy vs. a US-style Republic crops up from time to time (especially when the Senate is being particularly glacial), I thought I’d give my views on the differences between the systems, and their advantages and disadvantages. I’ll be comparing the US system with the Westminster System, with a particular focus on New Zealand’s version as that’s what I know best.

First off let me clear up a common misconception, parliamentary democracy is not the same thing as proportional representation or coalition governments. New Zealand voted using First Past the Post (the guy with the most votes wins) up until 1993, and the UK still uses it. Equally, coalition government was very rare until we started using a Mixed-Member Proportional voting system. Coalition government is still very rare in the UK (the current government notwithstanding). What I’m talking about is how power is spread among representatives once they’ve been elected, not how you elect them in the first place.

To me, the defining difference between a parliamentary democracy and the US is that there is no clean separation between the legislature and the executive in a parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister has the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament, since that’s how you become Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister also is a member of Cabinet and appoints the rest of Cabinet as they see fit, technically the Queen is the head of the executive branch but that power is latent and never used. This is one of the reasons why parliaments have an easier time getting things done, the executive and legislature are working together, except in unusual circumstances.

Parliaments are also more fluid, at least in theory. A Prime Minister is voted on by parliament, not the people and their support can be withdrawn at any time. A vote of no confidence is not merely a symbolic gesture in a parliamentary democracy, should the Prime Minister ever have a vote of no confidence passed against them the Queen (or the Queen’s appointed representative outside the UK) would dissolve Parliament and call a new election. Losing a major vote, like the Budget, would be considered as good as a vote of no confidence since any Member of Parliament that failed to vote for the Budget would also vote no confidence against the government.

Other differences are more cultural. The party system is much stronger than it is in the US, and Members of Parliament are generally expected to vote with their party on all but a few issues. Members that consistently went rogue would find themselves without a political career, unless they were popular enough to go independent or start a new party. We also have a different ethos in our civil service. The civil service is politically neutral – it serves the government of the day, but does not takes sides in the partisan struggle between political parties. Consequently our civil service does not change leadership after an election, and officials of the civil service are not hired, promoted or fired by Cabinet Ministers.

As I see it, the advantage of a parliamentary system is that it is easier for the government to act, a parliament in which no one had a mandate to act would be dissolved immediately as soon as it became plain that a coalition couldn’t be formed. There’s also less of an invitation to corruption, the average MP has little control over what legislation enters the house or which way they are to vote so there’s very little point in lobbying them heavily. And Cabinet (who do have the power to set the legislative agenda) are too few in number to see too many lobbyists, and they each have access to one or more government departments full of policy analysts to advise them on the merits of anything the lobbyists propose.

But the upsides of parliamentary democracies are also its downsides. The ease of acting comes at the expense of fewer checks and balances, the executive and legislature are always on the same team and in the UK and New Zealand you don’t have much in the way of judicial review either. Also the greater centralisation of power makes parliamentary system makes it a bit less representative, if your MP can’t really control their participation in the legislature, they can’t represent their constituents except through trying to convince the Caucus and/or Cabinet to go their way.

Ultimately, this is a question of power vs. restraint, and everyone will have a different view as to what the optimal balance is. I personally prefer the Parliamentary system, but that may be just a matter of home bias.

Share this:

James is a government policy analyst, and lives in Wellington, New Zealand. His interests including wargaming, computer gaming (especially RPGs and strategy games), Dungeons & Dragons and scepticism. No part of any of his posts or comments should be construed as the position of any part of the New Zealand government, or indeed any agency he may be associated with.

26 Responses

“The party system is much stronger than it is in the US, and Members of Parliament are generally expected to vote with their party on all but a few issues. Members that consistently went rogue would find themselves without a political career, unless they were popular enough to go independent or start a new party. ”

This is one thing that I have never understood about parliamentary systems. Does the MP represent his constituents to the government, or does he represent his party to the constituents? If the MP pleases his constituents but pisses off his party, can the party present him from running again for his seat? Would they try to do that if he was popular (likely to win no matter which party he belonged to) with the voters?Report

Honestly, it’s a bit of both. The party will select someone they think can win the election, but also someone who fits well with the party’s ideology. In New Zealand at least we don’t have primaries for candidates. Each party has an internal election where the local party has some say who is nominated, and the central party has some say (the exact balance depends on the party). But since MPs are expected to toe the party line, the party affiliation of a candidate matters a lot when the election rolls around.

Of course there are a few cases of especially charismatic or popular MPs defying their party and breaking off to form their own party. And since we have a partially proportional voting system we also have MPs who don’t have an electorate at all.Report

Yeah, it’s a pretty basic electoral rule. Unless you’re an unusual political figure you really have to have the support of the party apparatus to get elected and if you don’t toe the line and lose that support then whoever gains it will most likely get your job.Report

How much discretion does the Queen or her representative actually have and exercise?

Another, not particularly related, question: have New Zealand’s laws ever been subject to review by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the UK? I know that in Canada, at least some types of legislation were reviewable until the 1940s (1949?).

Finally–and please pardon my ignorance–does New Zealand have a federal system, and do you (or any of the other readers) have any thoughts on how a federal system might affect how a parliamentary system works?

The practical gap between “have” and “exercise” is a tremendous one. I don’t even have the expertise to begin listing them all. Off the top of my head the Monarch technically can dismiss parliament and call new elections at will. They can refuse to sign laws into law (but of course never does) effectively wielding a giant version of the presidential veto and are the actual ruler of the country and the actual commander in chief of the country’s armed forces (Parliamentary troops and citizens swear their loyalty to the Queen not to the Prime Minister or to a charter or constitution).

In my mind (and as James touched lightly in his 2nd paragraph) one of the significant strengths of the Parliamentary system is that the Monarchy executive contains and stores multiple powers in itself that it holds inert and never uses. This removes those powers from the grasp of actual politicians; a highly productive division of power.Report

North, you can school me on this if necessary, but my understanding about Canda is the Governor General technically holds massive power, but, in practice, acts as a rubber stamp basically. Is that about it?Report

In theory the need for the Queen or Governor General’s signature is a protection against a coup or other unconstitutional maneuver by the government that would at least deprive an usurper regime of legitimacy. I don’t think its ever been used in modern time though. James II dropped his Royal seal in the Thames on his way into exile after parliament (effectively) fired him and thus justified years of Jacobite rebellions, but that’s the last incident of that kind I can think of.Report

You have the authority to do X. But if you ever do X when we don’t ask you to do X, or if you refuse to do it when we do ask you to, you will lose the power to ever do X again. And, at the end of the day, we will probably undo X if we didn’t want you to do X and we’ll do X without you if we wanted you to do it but you refused.

Up until the undoing part I generally agree. In theory all politicians can only do something until the electorate knocks down the fences and hangs them from the lamp posts.

And to answer your question: Yes, you do. Right now. And more importantly: you have the power to do X and because you do then we don’t have to (legally) assign that power to anyone else. As long as that state of affairs holds then in practice no one has the power to do X and that from the point of view of a supporter of limited government is a powerfully useful thing.

It’s all very mushy which is to be expected from an organically evolved system like Parliament. Certainly to Americans with our constructed constitution it probably looks down right vague. But despite all those seeping wobbly bits and pulsing squishy parts it’s still an ancient system that runs some of the most prosperous countries on the planet (and doesn’t to too terrible a job of it).Report

North’s answer on the Queen’s powers (or more precisely the Governor General’s powers since they act for the Queen) works just as well for Canada as it does New Zealand, so I’ll just refer you to him.

New Zealand used to fall under the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, but we’ve had our own Supreme Court since the mid 00s.

We’re not at all federal, below central government lies municipal governments and that’s it. Of course with only 4 million people I’m not sure we could support another layer of government. I don’t know how federalism would interact with a parliamentary system, but a Canadian or Australian would have a better idea.Report

The part of the system that bugs me is the weakness of the judiciary. With the Queen an inert executive and the practical executive an inextricable part of the legislature, only the courts and the political sensibility of the electorate can stand in the way of the laws running amok against the rights of unpopular minorities or otherwise subverting the Constitutional norms of law that ought to govern.

I can’t speak to New Zealand, but the creation and implementation of the Human Rights Commissions in Canada is an example of what I’m talking about. A problem is identified (discrimination) and an ostensibly legitimate legislative response is formed. But in practice, the manner of enforcement endangers the free expression rights of Canadian citizens. Legislative correction of the problem is too unpopular for Parliament to address (you don’t favor discrimination, do you?), the Governor-General is effectively toothless, and without a strong judiciary to balance these competing interests you’re left with no real checks against the system running roughshod on the rights of citizens.Report

I don’t know about Canada but in the UK the judiciary has been becoming more assertive. The problem historically is that no act of parliament is superior to any other, and since the UK’s constitutional law consists of a series of acts of parliament, parliament can change the constitution at any time. Historically judges deferred to the most recent law in the belief that even if parliament didn’t explicitly throw out the old law, by passing something that contradicted it they were implicitly throwing it out. So, for example, although the Bill of Rights from 1689 says that Englishmen have the right to bear arms, the varying laws outlawing the private ownership and use of firearms have precedence because they’re more recent.

Since the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, and various other constitutional changes under the last government, judges have started giving laws that have clear constitutional intent (like the Convention) higher precedence. They still can’t really overturn other laws the way the US Supreme Court can, but they can refuse to enforce them on the basis of the contradiction and insist that Parliament clarify which law they want enforced. Under Labour, Tory MPs habitually grumbled about how they were going to get rid of various bits of the Human Rights Act (and indeed the Labour government actually did shred a couple of incovnenient bits about detention) but thus hasn’t happened so we can hope the new arrangement will persist.Report

My understanding, when it comes to Canada, is that the courts have become more assertive about civil rights since the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Rights and Liberties?) in 1982.Report

The thing that gets me is that the advantages and disadvantages of a parliamentary and particularly a unitary government strike me as also related to the type of society/polity it would govern. In a more homogenous country where social norms are fairly set, agreed upon, and form the bedrock of sociopolitical identity, then you don’t necessarily need local representation or strong checks and balances. Indeed, one could argue, their very redundancy would impede the efficiency of government and that the formal structures of government itself are comparatively less important.

However, the more diverse the social makeup the greater the social and political value of a diversity of representation and protection for marginalized groups.Report

A really good discussion. Since nobody has mentioned it, I would just add that Australia’s Governor General did exercise his “reserve” royal powers in 1975 by dismissing the elected Labor government during a political stalemate in parliament. Parliament was dissolved and the conservative opposition leader was installed as caretaker Prime Minister until an election was held a few weeks later. So the reserve powers of the crown are very real and sometimes even used. But there is always an element of untrammeled executive power in any government, and the parliamentary system still seems to me to be preferable to the US model, essentially for the reasons given in the original post.Report

I love the “glacialness” of the US Senate, for the reasons Madison gives in Federalist #62.

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number…It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

and even better, in theory, from before the 17th Amendment, when state legislatures appointed the senators, and theoretically held them to greater local accountability.

The parliamentrary system is like being ruled by the House of Representatives. I’m all for the will of the people and consent of the governed, but as Madison notes the will of the people is volatile

the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions…

The US system offers both flexibility and continuity:

The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.

Madison gives more elegant arguments in #62. Like the man says, read the whole thing.Report

Madison definitely has a point, and I think the parliamentary system would be stronger if it had more countervailing powers. It seems to me that judicial review in particular could be integrated without damaging the integrity of the system.Report

Religious Institutions. Religious institutions may resume services subject to the following conditions, which apply to churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, interfaith centers, and any other space, including rented space, where religious or faith gatherings are held: 1. Indoor religious gatherings are limited to no more than ten people. 2. Outdoor religious gatherings of up to 250 people are allowed. Outdoor services may be held on any outdoor space the religious institution owns, rents, or reserves for use. 3. All attendees at either indoor or outdoor services must maintain appropriate social distancing of six feet and wear face masks or facial coverings at all times. 4. There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service. 5. Collection plates or receptacles may not be passed to or between attendees. 6. There should be no hand shaking or other physical contact between congregants before, during, or after religious services. Attendees shall not congregate with other attendees on the property where religious services are being held before or after services. Family members or those who live in the same household or who attend a service together in the same vehicle may be closer than six feet apart but shall remain at least six feet apart from any other persons or family groups. 7. Singing is permitted, but not recommended. If singing takes place, only the choir or religious leaders may sing. Any person singing without a mask or facial covering must maintain a 12-foot distance from other persons, including religious leaders, other singers, or the congregation. 8. Outdoor or drive-in services may be conducted with attendees remaining in their vehicles. If utilizing parking lots for either holding for religious services or for parking for services held elsewhere on the premises, religious institutions shall ensure there is adequate parking available. 9. All high touch areas, (including benches, chairs, etc.) must be cleaned and decontaminated after every service. 10. Religious institutions are encouraged to follow the guidelines issued by Governor Hogan.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” the order says in a section delineating norms and restrictions on religious services.

The consumption of the consecrated species at Mass, at least by the celebrant, is an integral part of the Eucharistic rite. Rules prohibiting even the celebrating priest from receiving the Eucharist would ban the licit celebration of Mass by any priest.

CNA asked the Howard County public affairs office to comment on how the rule aligns with First Amendment religious freedom and free exercise rights.

Howard County spokesman Scott Peterson told CNA in a statement that "Howard County has not fully implemented Phase 1 of Reopening. We continue to do an incremental rollout based on health and safety guidelines, analysis of data and metrics specific to Howard County and in consultation with our local Health Department."

"With this said," Peterson added, "we continue to get stakeholder feedback in order to fully reopen to Phase 1."

The executive order also limits attendance at indoor worship spaces to 10 people or fewer, limits outdoor services to 250 socially-distanced people wearing masks, forbids the passing of collection plates, and bans handshakes and physical contact between worshippers.

In contrast to the 10-person limit for churches, establishments listed in the order that do not host religious services are permitted to operate at 50% capacity.

In the early days of the Coronavirus epidemic, there were hopes that the disease could be treated with a compound called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ is a long-established inexpensive medicine that is widely used to treat malaria. It also has uses for treating rheumatoid arthritis and lupus. There had been some indications that HCQ could treat SARS virus infections by attacking the spike proteins that coronaviruses use to latch onto cells and inject their genetic material. Initial small-scale studies of the drug on COVID-19 patients indicated some positive effect (in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin). President Trump, in March, promoted HCQ as a game-changer and is apparently taking it as a prophylaxis after potentially being exposed by White House staff.

Initial claims of the efficacy of this therapy were a perfect illustration of why we base decisions on scientific studies and not anecdotes. By late March, Twitter was filled with stories of "my cousin's mother's former roommate was on death's door and took this therapy and miraculously recovered". But such stories, even assuming they are true, mean nothing. With COVID-19, we know that seriously ill people reach an inflection point where they either recover or die. If they died while taking the HCQ regimen, we don't hear from them because...they died. And if they recover without taking it, we don't hear from them because...they didn't take it. Our simian brains have evolved to think that correlation is causation. But it isn't. If I sacrificed a goat in every COVID-19 patient's room, some of them would recover just by chance. That doesn't mean we should start a massive holocaust of caprines.

However, even putting aside anecdotes, there were good reasons to believe the HCQ regimen might work. And given the seriousness of this disease and the desperation of those trying to save lives, it's understandable that doctors began using it for critically ill patients and scientists began researching its efficacy.

Why Trump became fixated on it is equally understandable. Trump has been looking for a quick fix to this crisis since Day One. Denial failed. Closing off (some) travel to China failed. A vaccine is months if not years away. So HCQ offered him what he wanted -- a way to fix this problem without the hard work, tough choices and sacrifice of stay-at-home orders, masks, isolation and quarantine. So eager were they to adopt the quick fix, the Administration made plans to distribute millions of doses of this unproven drug in lieu of taking more concrete steps to address the crisis.[efn_note]Although the claim that Trump stands to profit off HCQ sales does not appear to hold much water.[/efn_note]

This is also why certain fringe corners of the internet became fixated on it. There has arisen a subset of the COVID Truthers that I'm calling HCQ Truthers: people who believe that HCQ isn't just something that may save some lives but is, in fact, a miracle cure that it's only being held back so that...well, take your pick. So that Democrats can wreck the economy. So that Bill Gates can inject us with tracking devices. So that we can clear off the Social Security rolls. And this isn't just a US phenomenon nor is it all about Trump. Overseas friends tell me that COVID trutherism in general and HCQ trutherism in particular have arisen all over the Western World.

It's no accident that the HCQ Truthers seem to share a great deal of headspace with the anti-Vaxxers. It fills the same needs

In both cases, the idea was started by flawed studies. The initial studies out of China and France that indicated HCQ worked were heavily criticized for methodological errors (although note that neither claimed it was a miracle cure). Since then, larger studies have shown no effect.

HCQ trutherism offers an explanation for tragedy beyond the random cruelty of nature. Just as anti-vaxxers don't want to believe that sometimes autism just happens, HCQ Truthers don't want to believe that sometimes nature just releases awful epidemics on us. It's more comforting, in some ways, to think that bad happenings are all part of a plan by shadowy forces.

There is, however, another crazy side that doesn't get as much attention because their crazy is a bit more subtle. These are the people who have decided that, since Trump is touting the HCQ treatment, it must not work. It can not work. It can not be allowed to work. There is an undisguised glee when studies show that HCQ does not work and a willingness to blame HCQ shortages on Trump and only Trump.[efn_note]Not to mention the odd fish tank cleaner poisoning that has nothing to do with him.[/efn_note]

In between the two camps are everyone else: scientists, doctors and ordinary folk who just want to know whether this thing works or not, politics and conspiracy theories be damned. Well, last week, we got a big indication that it does not. A massive study out of the Lancet concluded that the HCQ regimen has no measurable positive effect. In fact, death rates were higher for those who took the regimen, likely due to heart arrhythmias induced by the drug.

So is the debate over? Can we move on from HCQ? Not quite.

First of all, the study is a retrospective study, looking backward at nearly 100,000 cases over the last four months. That's a massive sample that allows one to correct for potential confounding factors. But it's not a double-blind trial, so there may be certain biases that can not be avoided. In response to the publication, a group doing a controlled study unblinded some of their data (that is, they let an independent group look up who was getting the actual HCQ and who was getting a placebo). It did not show enough of a safety concern to warrant ending the study.

It's also worth noting that because this is an unproven therapy, it is usually being used on only the sickest patients (the odd President of the United States aside). It's possible earlier use of the drug, when the body is not already at war with itself, could help.

With those caveats in mind, however, this study at least makes it clear that HCQ is not the miracle cure some fringe corners of the internet are pretending it is. And it should make doctors hesitant in giving to people who already have heart issues.

As you can imagine, this has only fed the twin camps of derangement. The truther arguments tend to fall into the usual holes that truther theories do:

"How can this be a four-month study when we only learned about COVID in January!" The HCQ protocol started being used almost immediately because of previous research on coronaviruses.

"How come all of the sudden this safe medicine that people use all the time is dangerous?!" The side effects of HCQ have been well known for years and have always required consideration and management. They may be showing up more strongly here because it is being given to patients whose bodies are already under extreme stress. Also, azithromycin may amplify some of those side effects.

"They just hate Trump." Not everything is about Donald Trump. If it turned out that kissing Donald Trump's giant orange backside cured COVID, scientists would be the first ones telling people to line up and use chapstick.

The other camp's response has ranged from undisguised glee -- that is, joy at the idea that we won't be saving lives cheaply -- to bizarre claims that Trump should be charged with crimes for touting this unproven therapy.

(A perfect illustration of the dementia: former FDA Head Scott Gottlieb -- who has been a Godsend for objective analysis during the pandemic -- tweeted out the results of the RECOVERY unblinding yesterday morning and noted that it showed no increased safety risk. He was immediately dogpiled by one side insisting he was trying to conceal the miracle cure of HCQ and the other insisting he is a Trumpist doing the Orange Man's dirty work.)

In the end, the lunatics do not matter. Whether HCQ works or not, whether it is used or not, will be mostly determined by doctors and will mostly be based on the evidence we have in front of us. If HCQ fails -- and it's not looking good -- my only response will be massive disappointment. Had HCQ worked, it would have been a gift from the heavens. It is a well-known, well-studied drug that can be manufactured cheaply in bulk. Had it worked, we could have saved thousands of lives, prevented hundreds of thousands of long-term injuries and saved trillions of dollars. That it doesn't appear to work -- certainly not miraculously -- is not entirely unexpected but is also a tragedy.

{C1} The Christian Science Monitor looks at 1918 and how sports handled that pandemic, and the role it played in giving rise to college football.

"That's really what started the big boom of college football in the 1920s," said Jeremy Swick, historian at the College Football Hall of Fame. "People were ready. They were back from war. They wanted to play football again. There weren't as many restrictions about going out. You could enroll back in school pretty easily. You see a great level of talent come back into the atmosphere. There's new money. It started to get to the roar of the Roaring '20s and that's when you see the stadiums arm race. Who can build the biggest and baddest stadium?"

{C2} During times of rapid change, social science is supposed to be able to help lead the way or at least decipher what is going on. Or maybe not...

But while Willer, Van Bavel, and their colleagues were putting together their paper, another team of researchers put together their own, entirely opposite, call to arms: a plea, in the face of an avalanche of behavioral science research on COVID-19, for psychology researchers to have some humility. This paper—currently published online in draft format and seeding avid debates on social media—argues that much of psychological research is nowhere near the point of being ready to help in a crisis. Instead, it sketches out an “evidence readiness” framework to help people determine when the field will be.

{C3} There is a related story about AI - which is predisposed towards tracking slow change over time - is having trouble keeping up.

{C4} The Covid-19 does not bode well for higher education is not news. They may have a lot of difficulty opening up (and maybe shouldn't). An added wrinkle is kids taking a gap year, which is potentially a problem because those most able to pay may be least likely to attend.

{C5} People who can see the faults with abstinence only education fail to see how that logic (We shouldn't give guidance to people doing things we would rather they not do in the first place). Emily Oster argues that the extreme message of public health advocates to Just Stay Home is counterproductive.

When people are advised that one very difficult behavior is safe, and (implicitly or not) that everything else is risky, they may crack under the pressure, or throw up their hands. That is, if people think all activities (other than staying home) are equally risky, they figure they might as well do those that are more fun. If taking a walk at a six-foot distance from a friend puts me at very high risk, why not just have that friend and a bunch of others over for a barbecue? It’s more fun. This is an exaggeration, of course, but different activities carry very different risks, and conscientious civic leaders should actively help people choose among them.

{C6} A look at what canceling the football season will do to the little guys - non-power schools. Ironically, they may sustain less damage due to fewer financial obligations relying on the money that won't be coming in. Be that as it may, Fordham has disestablished its baseball program.

{C7} Bans on evictions and rental spikes could have the main effect of simply pushing out small investors, rather than protecting renters. In a more good-faith economy this would be less of an issue because landlords would work with tenants. Which some are, though I don't have too much faith about it being widespread.

{C8} Three cheers for Nick Saban. Football coaches are cultural leaders of a sort. One is about to become a senator in Alabama, even. What they do matters.

The American college experience for better or for worse revolves around the residency factor. We have turned college into a relatively safe place for young adults to the test the limits of freedom without suffering too many consequences. Better to miss a day of classes because you drank too much than to miss a day of an apprenticeship or job and get fired. College was cut short this semester because of COVID and colleges are freaking out about whether they can open up dorms in the fall. The dorms are big money makers and it is hard to justify huge tuition bucks for zoom lectures even for elite universities. Maybe especially for them. California State University announced that Fall 2020 is going to be largely online. My undergrad alma mater sent out an e-mail blast announcing their plan to reopen in the fall with "mostly" in person classes. The President admitted that the plan was a work in progress but it strikes me as a combination of common sense and extreme wishful thinking. The plan may include:

1. Staggered drop-off days to limit density as we return.

This sounds reasonable but only in a temporary way because eventually everyone will be back on campus, living in dorm rooms together, needing to use communal bathrooms and showers.

2. Students would be tested for COVID-19 on campus at least twice in the first 14 days.

There is nothing wrong with this as long as the testing is available. Our capacity for testing so far in this country has not been great.

3. Anyone experiencing symptoms would be tested immediately. Students who test positive would be cared for in a separate dormitory area where food would be brought to the room and where the student could still access classes remotely.

Nothing wrong here. Outbreaks of certain diseases are not unknown in the college setting. During my senior year, there was an outbreak of a rather nasty strain of gastroenteritis. Other universities have experienced meningitis outbreaks.

4. All students would take their temperature and report symptoms daily.

This one is also reasonable but is going to involve spying on students and coming up with a punishment mechanism. How will they make sure students are not lying?

5. We would also require that socializing be kept to a minimum in the beginning, with proper PPE (masks) and social distancing. As time went on, we would seek to open up more, and students could socialize and eat together in small groups.

I have no idea how they tend for this to happen and it sets of all my lawyer bells for carefully crafted language that attempts to answer a concern or question but also admits "we got nothing." Maybe today's students are more somber and sincere but you are going to have around 500 eighteen year olds who are away from their parents for the first time and another 1500 nineteen to twenty-one year olds who had their semester rudely interrupted and might now be reunited with boyfriends and girlfriends. Are they going to assign eating times for the dining hall and put up solo eating cubicles that get wiped down and disinfected after each use? Assign times to use laundry facilities in each dorm? Cancel the clubs? Cancel performances by the theatre, dance, and music departments?

I am sympathetic to my alma I love it but and realize that a lot of colleges and universities would take a real hit financially without residency. This includes universities with reasonable to very large endowments. Only the ones with hedge fund size endowments would not suffer but the last part of the plain sounds not fully thought out yet even if my college's current President admitted: "Life on campus will not look the same as it did pre-pandemic" The only way i see number 5 working is if requiring is read as "requiring."

Seems that the theory that Covid-19 can be spread by asymptomatic people has very shaky evidence in support of it. Turns out the case this assumption was made from was based on a single woman who infected 4 others. Researchers talked to the 4 patients, and they all said the patient 0 did not appear ill, but they could not speak to patient 0 at the time.

So they finally got to talk to her, and she said she was feeling ill, but powered through with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals.

Ten Second News

Today we couldn’t be happier to announce that Vox Media and New York Media are merging to create the leading independent modern media company. Our combined business will be called Vox Media and will serve hundreds of millions of audience members wherever they prefer to enjoy our work.

In a nation in turmoil, it's nice to have even a small bit of good news:

Representative Steve King of Iowa, the nine-term Republican with a history of racist comments who only recently became a party pariah, lost his bid for renomination early Wednesday, one of the biggest defeats of the 2020 primary season in any state.

In a five-way primary, Mr. King was defeated by Randy Feenstra, a state senator, who had the backing of mainstream state and national Republicans who found Mr. King an embarrassment and, crucially, a threat to a safe Republican seat if he were on the ballot in November.

The defeat was most likely the final political blow to one of the nation’s most divisive elected officials, whose insults of undocumented immigrants foretold the messaging of President Trump, and whose flirtations with extremism led him far from rural Iowa, to meetings with anti-Muslim crusaders in Europe and an endorsement of a Toronto mayoral candidate with neo-Nazi ties.

King, you may remember, was stripped of his committee assignments last year when he defended white supremacism. Two years ago, he almost lost his Congressional seat in the general. That is, a seat that Republicans have held since 1986, usually win by double digits and a district Trump carried by a whopping 27 points almost came within a point or two of voting in a Democrat. That's how repulsive King had gotten.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Enjoy retirement, Congressman. Oops. Sorry. In January, it will be former Congressman.

Comment →

From the Daily Mail: Deadliest city in America plans to disband its entire police force and fire 270 cops to deal with budget crunch

The deadliest city in America is disbanding its entire police force and firing 270 cops in an effort to deal with a massive budget crunch.

...

The police union says the force, which will not be unionized, is simply a union-busting move that is meant to get out of contracts with current employees. Any city officers that are hired to the county force will lose the benefits they had on the unionized force.

Oak Park police say they are investigating “suspicious circumstances” after two attorneys — including one who served as a hearing officer in several high-profile Chicago police misconduct cases — were found dead in their home in the western suburb Monday night.

Officers were called about 7:30 p.m. for a well-being check inside a home in the 500 block of Fair Oaks Avenue, near Chicago Avenue, and found the couple dead inside, Oak Park spokesman David Powers said in an emailed statement. Authorities later identified them as Thomas E. Johnson, 69, and Leslie Ann Jones, 67, husband and wife attorneys who worked in Chicago.

The preliminary report from an independent autopsy ordered by George Floyd's family says the 46 year old man's death was "caused by asphyxia due to neck and back compression that led to a lack of blood flow to the brain".

The independent examiners found that weight on the back, handcuffs and positioning were contributory factors because they impaired the ability of Floyd's diaphragm to function, according to the report.

Dr. Michael Baden and the University of Michigan Medical School's director of autopsy and forensic services, Dr. Allecia Wilson, handled the examination, according to family attorney Ben Crump.

Baden, who was New York's medical examiner in 1978 and 1979, had previously performed independent autopsies on Eric Garner, who was killed by a police officer in Staten Island, New York, in 2014 and Michael Brown, who was shot by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, that same year.

Featured Comment

Oddly, the video was dropped by an attorney friend the men, because he thought it would exonerate them. He assumed when people saw Aubrey turn and try to defend himself, everyone would see what they did: a dangerous animal needing to be put down.